Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

Yesterday, a district court judge ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, citing that government should not be creating such an event. What do you think about this ruling?

Food for thought......You WILL NOT find the words, "Seperation of Church and State" anywhere in the constitution. Take a look you will not find it. The term was used by Jefferson when addressing a community that came to America to escape English rule and religious prosecution. He used this term in his speech to remind the "new comers" that although our country was established on Christian beliefs our country will not make Christianity the church of America.

If you recall in England they named the church of England and people were MADE to attend religious services at this church and if they did not they were prosecuted. So people started fleeing England.

So Franklin wanted to reassure everyone that we will not require anyone to attend our church or practice our beliefs. But he did acknowledge the fact that our country is established on Christianity!

Do or Die · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:11 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now go away.

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

Becoming educated also means reading ALL the info provided not just what suits you and research!

The day of prayer is non denominational. So they aren't making a specific religion, just designating a day in which all religions should unite in prayer. This ruling as unconstitutional is just another liberal-atheist attempt at destroying religion!!!

All the lawsuits that have wasted the nation's judicial resources have been filed on the basis that it is offensive to an atheist to have to see a cross in a public place. How could happening to see a cross be more offensive to an atheist than seeing a work of art such as a cross floating in a jar of urine is to a Christian?

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech. If you cannot see the hypocrisy here then you are not even trying to grasp the issue.

Do or Die · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:41 pm

twinks wrote:

Becoming educated also means reading ALL the info provided not just what suits you and research!

Well here's a good book recommendation for you, since you're such a stickler for reading ALL the info provided to you.

Quote:

The day of prayer is non denominational. So they aren't making a specific religion, just designating a day in which all religions should unite in prayer. This ruling as unconstitutional is just another liberal-atheist attempt at destroying religion!!!

Cause religion has done SSOOOOOOO many good things for us. Here's some 'food for thought' for you. Enjoy.

mrducky · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:47 am

DUCKY IS HERE <3

twinks wrote:

Yesterday, a district court judge ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, citing that government should not be creating such an event. What do you think about this ruling?

i think its fine since it doesnt specify a particular religion. it is touchy to specify prayer though. perhaps if modified only slightly to encompass other religions.

Food for thought......You WILL NOT find the words, "Seperation of Church and State" anywhere in the constitution.

your first amendment bro
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

"The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter"

a founding fathers ideas directly imprinted into that first sentence, he summed it up as seperation of church and state

Take a look you will not find it. The term was used by Jefferson when addressing a community that came to America to escape English rule and religious prosecution. He used this term in his speech to remind the "new comers" that although our country was established on Christian beliefs our country will not make Christianity the church of America.

OBJECTION! he is notioning to the fact that USA will be a secular nation, untouched by the problems of theocracy that europe was encountering (kings help the church, the church helps the king, the people suffer.) since then, most countries have indeed worked off that, and are secular nations, that is, an unbiased indifference to religion.
that is, keep religion and government seperate to prevent becoming a country like Iran or Medieval kingdoms where the excessive wealth of the church was supported by the government as the church would keep the populus content.

If you recall in England they named the church of England and people were MADE to attend religious services at this church and if they did not they were prosecuted. So people started fleeing England.

hence, theocracy. its what happens when a religion affects government. see: modern day Iran

So Franklin wanted to reassure everyone that we will not require anyone to attend our church or practice our beliefs. But he did acknowledge the fact that our country is established on Christianity!

franklin is it? here i was thinking its jefferson. i would like to point out that the FF were deists and as such were persecuted by the church of england for NOT being christian

Quote:

This ruling as unconstitutional is just another liberal-atheist attempt at destroying religion!!!

im loling now, please do continue, i find glenn beck entertaining, not educational, you are the same <3

Quote:

All the lawsuits that have wasted the nation's judicial resources have been filed on the basis that it is offensive to an atheist to have to see a cross in a public place.

i think the atheists rather call it JUSTICE, they are merely upholding the law. the bias is obvious

. public buildings shouldnt display crosses, if the library of congress had a massive scientologist symbol on it, i would hope you be outraged.

Quote:

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech.

ive come to say the following sentence A LOT
"lying for jesus is still lying."

i really hate it when someone tells you to look at all the info and then either
a) provide no info
b) provide no source to get to info
c) rant
d) all of the above

e) post a link to youtube

i believe you fall under d)

ducky out.

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

mrducky wrote:

DUCKY IS HERE <3

twinks wrote:

i think its fine since it doesnt specify a particular religion. it is touchy to specify prayer though. perhaps if modified only slightly to encompass other religions.

your first amendment bro
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

"The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter"

a founding fathers ideas directly imprinted into that first sentence, he summed it up as seperation of church and state

TIt isn't a law in the sense of it carrying a penalty. It is merely a designation.

James Madison: But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

Jefferson meant that the church should have no direct role in religion.

Take a look you will not find it. The term was used by Jefferson when addressing a community that came to America to escape English rule and religious prosecution. He used this term in his speech to remind the "new comers" that although our country was established on Christian beliefs our country will not make Christianity the church of America.

OBJECTION! he is notioning to the fact that USA will be a secular nation, untouched by the problems of theocracy that europe was encountering (kings help the church, the church helps the king, the people suffer.) since then, most countries have indeed worked off that, and are secular nations, that is, an unbiased indifference to religion.
that is, keep religion and government seperate to prevent becoming a country like Iran or Medieval kingdoms where the excessive wealth of the church was supported by the government as the church would keep the populus content.

And what exactly does this have to do with a day designating on a calendar for non-denominational prayer?

hence, theocracy. its what happens when a religion affects government. see: modern day Iran

OBJECTION! Theocracy is a method of governance with a god or deity being the state's leader or form of government with a state being controlled by people who are considered as guided by a god.

franklin is it? here i was thinking its jefferson. i would like to point out that the FF were deists and as such were persecuted by the church of england for NOT being christian

Jefferson*

Quote:

This ruling as unconstitutional is just another liberal-atheist attempt at destroying religion!!!

im loling now, please do continue, i find glenn beck entertaining, not educational, you are the same <3

i think the atheists rather call it JUSTICE, they are merely upholding the law. the bias is obvious

. public buildings shouldnt display crosses, if the library of congress had a massive scientologist symbol on it, i would hope you be outraged.

Am I wrong? Any type religion is mentioned or seen on something public atheist feel threatened. Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no? Religion is apart of the United States history.

That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders. While you might look at religion and think of all the evil things it did, you never like to think of the good it did.

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.

Quote:

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech.

ive come to say the following sentence A LOT
"lying for jesus is still lying."

You didn't refute this point.

Do or Die · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Quote:

Am I wrong? Any type religion is mentioned or seen on something public atheist feel threatened. Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no? Religion is apart of the United States history.

That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders. While you might look at religion and think of all the evil things it did, you never like to think of the good it did.

Who said ANYTHING about erasing religion completely? You did, that's who. I'm an atheist, and I respect other peoples religions. I just don't believe we should have a day where everyone has to pray to whatever. I say if people want to pray, let them do it on their OWN time. If people don't want to pray, than they won't.

Quote:

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.

Since when do the ends justify the means?

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

Do or Die wrote:

Quote:

Am I wrong? Any type religion is mentioned or seen on something public atheist feel threatened. Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no? Religion is apart of the United States history.

That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders. While you might look at religion and think of all the evil things it did, you never like to think of the good it did.

Who said ANYTHING about erasing religion completely? You did, that's who. I'm an atheist, and I respect other peoples religions. I just don't believe we should have a day where everyone has to pray to whatever. I say if people want to pray, let them do it on their OWN time. If people don't want to pray, than they won't.

Its not a law. You aren't forced to participate. You aren't force to fire fireworks on the 4th of July. Your not forced to remember those who've died on memorial day. No one is forced to pray on the NDP.

Quote:

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.

Quote:

Since when do the ends justify the means?

Don't be childish. Every war ever fought acknowledged that there is a risk to fighting a war. Innocent people will die. In WWII strategic bombing such as targeting only industrial zones still yields collateral damage. Innocent people being killed as a result. We accept those deaths as necessary to prevent further death. The atomic bombing of two japanese cities and the subsequent deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to prevent the forecasted deaths estimated at 1 million casualties for the allies in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions.

Do or Die · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:08 pm

twinks wrote:

Do or Die wrote:

Quote:

Am I wrong? Any type religion is mentioned or seen on something public atheist feel threatened. Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no? Religion is apart of the United States history.

That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders. While you might look at religion and think of all the evil things it did, you never like to think of the good it did.

Who said ANYTHING about erasing religion completely? You did, that's who. I'm an atheist, and I respect other peoples religions. I just don't believe we should have a day where everyone has to pray to whatever. I say if people want to pray, let them do it on their OWN time. If people don't want to pray, than they won't.

Its not a law. You aren't forced to participate. You aren't force to fire fireworks on the 4th of July. Your not forced to remember those who've died on memorial day. No one is forced to pray on the NDP.
Comparing a Day of Prayer with the 4th of July is a bit naive. Everyone who lives in America is an American. Not everyone who lives in America is religious. If people want to pray, LET THEM DO IT ON THEIR OWN TIME.

Quote:

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.

Quote:

Since when do the ends justify the means?

Don't be childish. Every war ever fought acknowledged that there is a risk to fighting a war. Innocent people will die. In WWII strategic bombing such as targeting only industrial zones still yields collateral damage. Innocent people being killed as a result. We accept those deaths as necessary to prevent further death. The atomic bombing of two japanese cities and the subsequent deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to prevent the forecasted deaths estimated at 1 million casualties for the allies in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions.

I'M the one being childish, and you bring out a WW2 example. FINE, let's talk WW2, since you want to lose a debate so badly. Without Hitler, the Great Depression would have ended YEARS later. Are the 6 million people he killed 'necessary'? What about all the billions of damage done to property, and the countless lives of soldiers taken during WW2? Were those NECESSARY? Do the ends REALLY justify the means THAT MUCH to you? Cause if they do, I feel sorry for you as a human being.

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

Quote:

Comparing a Day of Prayer with the 4th of July is a bit naive. Everyone who lives in America is an American. Not everyone who lives in America is religious. If people want to pray, LET THEM DO IT ON THEIR OWN TIME.

July the 4th isn't about being an American. Its about patriotism. There are un-patriotic Americans.

Quote:

I'M the one being childish, and you bring out a WW2 example. FINE, let's talk WW2, since you want to lose a debate so badly. Without Hitler, the Great Depression would have ended YEARS later. Are the 6 million people he killed 'necessary'? What about all the billions of damage done to property, and the countless lives of soldiers taken during WW2? Were those NECESSARY? Do the ends REALLY justify the means THAT MUCH to you? Cause if they do, I feel sorry for you as a human being.

WWII wasn't something we wanted to do. In fact it was something we didn't want to do, even in the wake of a depression. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike they forced our hand.

While it may be grim to say so, the war did bounce the US economy back. It wasn't a choice we made, so calling it a necessity is a bit of a stretch.

Do or Die, your points show little forethought. Please leave the debating to ducky. I at least have to think for a minute before responding to him.